The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Abundis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't look like much information is added to the article. It has no importance in my opinion. Creation7689 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also looked carefully through the various Google searches and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could have been dealt with via ((db-person)) or ((prod blp)), imo. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.